there is no point to explaining something that is way over your head. I tried and I failed. Perhaps you could attempt to explain the difference between :You've yet to explain how 0 would be different from (-x) + x, "philosophically" or otherwise.
1-1 = 0
and
0=1-1
and demonstrate an ability to offer criticism of others work.
with out zero any number becomes a floating variable....zero is the anchor that provides constancy of value.I don't even know what it could possibly mean that "all values achieve their value". That's just gobbledegook.
1=1 because
1-1 = 0
0=0 because
0-0 = 0
not
0= 1-1
Mathematics is a branch of philosophy so exactly who is being idiotic?Your claim that "all of mathematics has an inherent paradox because philosophically 0=/= 1-1" is idiotic.
If it is philosophically that 0 is different from 1 - 1, then the paradox is entirely in philosophy.
because as stated earlier nothingness or zero is fundamentally important to achieving and maintaining constancy of value. The non-existence that zero implies, is fundamental to mathematical integrity.You've yet to explain how that would be a paradox inherent to mathematics.
The only "thing" that is universally constant (in absolutuum) in all of mathematics is zero. If zero was in any way floating in value, mathematics would be scrambled egg....
So....
do some head work and compare:
0= x + (-)x
with the famous "ex-nihilo" paradox and see how you go...
then apply what you learn to your liars paradox...
Go on... "slay the ego" ... and get some credit on the board
Last edited: